warhammer40kfanonfandomcom-20200216-history
Forum:Admin Discussion Board
As it says on the tin. Dirge's Replacement In light of Dirge relinquishing his Administrator position, we are currently down an admin. My suggestion would be to replace him with RemosPendragon in order to increase the efficiency of Necrus' efforts to clean up the wiki and remove undesirable content. --'KhalaelMy Talk' 14:04, September 9, 2014 (UTC) I strongly agree with this. Remos has definitely proved himself as admin material. In fact, it's gone to show that his current lack of such privileges have only slowed down his improvements, i.e. with the deletion of articles violating the wiki policies or with an expired quality issue/ stub template. -- NecrusIV -(''Talk'' |My Wiki) 06:04, September 10, 2014 (UTC) I too believe that this is a good idea. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 06:27, September 10, 2014 (UTC) I disagree. Remos is still a new member of the community. I vote OrkMarine for his near-omnipresence, fairness, and non-judgemental capacities. --Lither My talk My wiki 07:12, September 10, 2014 (UTC) Remos gets my vote. -- Ave Dominus Nox! -(''Talk'' |My Sandbox) 19:46, September 10, 2014 (UTC) Well with four votes out of six notionally active admins, I'd say the motion to promote Remos passes. --'KhalaelMy Talk' 20:23, September 10, 2014 (UTC) GPP and Image policies I'm bringing this up here, because I think it is most likely thing that should be discussed between admins, and didn't want to harass anyone's talkpage. I'd like to get the image policies through this time. I think it is only fair and reasonable, after the GPP is done. If not, could I get some actual arguments about why not? --Remos talk 11:27, September 19, 2014 (UTC) We'll have to review the Image Policy after you've completed the purge. At the moment, there's still a lot of unresolved parameters and we need to have everything categorised before we can start properly enforcing it. I think it would be of benefit once we have the framework properly in place, but right now it's too soon to tell. --'KhalaelMy Talk' 22:29, September 25, 2014 (UTC) Njah, there's only ~7000 to go. --Remos talk 22:31, September 25, 2014 (UTC) It's an unenviable task. I'd help you out but this laptop doesn't cope with mass deletions very well. It starts complaining and freezes regularly. :P --'KhalaelMy Talk' 22:32, September 25, 2014 (UTC) Totalimmortal's Demotion Addressing the recent concerns of the wiki community raised in the Community Discussion Board, I would like to bring this issue forward to the administrators for immediate discussion. This recent community discussion had raised an extremely important issue that could not be ignored, specifically on the subject of Total's removal from power, following an overwhelming vote in favour of such by the wiki's user base. I would like to propose a vote and discussion on the matter so we can effectively respond to the concerns of our wiki's majority. -- NecrusIV -(''Talk'' |My Wiki) 03:16, September 28, 2014 (UTC) Agreed. Though, concerning the community's response on the discussion board, I don't know if our vote matters at all. After all, all wikis are community projects and if the community says nay for Total's position as an admin, it needs to be handled. I say yes, for Total's demotion. But I also want to stress that Supah, as our lord inquisitor and bureau, should act on the basis of community's oppinion, not solely on admins' oppinion, whatever we happen to say about the matter. --Remos talk 08:55, September 28, 2014 (UTC) I agree with Remos in regards to the weight of our vote. With a current 10 votes in favour of demoting Total on the Community Discussion Board, it would be seen as bad taste if we were to veto it or disregard that input. Regardless, I'll vote in favour of Total's demotion in solidarity with both of you and the rest of the community. As we're discussing the demotion of admins at this time, I'd also like to bring up the subject of removing obsolete and inactive admins in line with our current reformation of the wiki. KhalaelMy Talk 15:19, September 28, 2014 (UTC) Likewise, I believe Total should have his position removed. There is such hostility towards him on the Community Discussion Board, and after reading through some of their points, I can't help but sympathize with their belief. The removal of inactive admins is also a step in the right direction, as an administrator should be a dedicated contributor to the site, who is always available when another user requires aid. -- Ave Dominus Nox! -(''Talk'' |My Sandbox) 18:13, September 28, 2014 (UTC) Of course, Sol, we are human beings too. But I see your and Khal's point about inactive admins. KuHB1aM haven't edited anything since 2010, Vegas Adict since 2011, BB since 2012, DS since 2013 (if we declude that particular blog post's comments) and even if Run4urLife! returned just to fix his article after I marked it for deletation, I don't see he has either done anything regarding site administration since 2013. All in all, I wonder, why have they been kept on the admin list this long in the first place..? I understand we are all just human beings and people have maybe something more important to do in daily basis, but if it restricts your administration duty here, you should at least info the rest of us and ask for demotion. If we are going to vote about demotion of inactive admins (all mentioned above), I vote yes. And I mean all of them. --Remos talk 18:55, September 28, 2014 (UTC) Chat Mod Reshuffle In light of research conducted on the number of chat mods we have and the coverage discrepancies, I'd like to propose that we demote the redundant ones and promote another user that can cover the SEA timezone alongside our current Australian admins. Demotions would be as follows: Vernichtung, Tomj8937, DirgeOfCerberus111 and Imposter101. My nomination for a SEA Chat Mod would be OrkMarine. Regards --'KhalaelMy Talk' 23:53, November 4, 2014 (UTC) Sounds good to me. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 23:55, November 4, 2014 (UTC) I'm indifferent to this, and will support whatever the other admins agree upon. -- Ave Dominus Nox! -(''Talk'' |My Sandbox) 00:26, November 5, 2014 (UTC) Seems pretty logical based on the spreadsheet provided. I vote in favour for this. -- NecrusIV -(''Talk'' |My Wiki) 02:50, November 5, 2014 (UTC) Plausible enough. I say yes for this. --Remos talk 15:05, November 5, 2014 (UTC) Canon policy update - Gods Yeah, well, you know what I'm talking about and proposing. I think quite amount of discussion have happened around the God-policies I've written (3 blog-posts) and at least to me they seem quite good at the moment. Is any of you willing to apply these god-policies currently suggested. Or is there some grave mistakes still in them? --Remos talk 08:41, November 26, 2014 (UTC) I support this. It's a properly formatted version with the appropriate clauses. May the Bureaucracy Gods be appeased. --'KhalaelMy Talk' 10:09, November 26, 2014 (UTC) I give this my approval and support. — NecrusIV [[User_Talk:NecrusIV|(Talk)]] 13:30, November 26, 2014 (UTC) I too, support this endeavour. -- Ave Dominus Nox! -(''Talk'' |My Sandbox) 20:52, November 26, 2014 (UTC) I think that one more agree on this is enough... as it was with previous. So if and when it comes, I'll get on with the matter. Just leave the updating to me. --Remos talk 21:51, November 26, 2014 (UTC) You have my blessing Remos. Nice work. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 19:11, November 27, 2014 (UTC) Demotion of inactive and redundant admins I'd like to bring this up now as it has been a bit over half a year since it was first discussed, during Total's demotion process. This team of ours consists of 10 administrators and 2 bureaus at the moment. Of these, only couple are actually active on this site and because of that, I propose that those admins who have not been in any way part of our community, and this site's maintenance and help for new users, et cetera, are to be demoted. So, I propose that following admins are demoted: *User:KuHB1aM *User:Run4urLife! *User:Vegas adict *User:Blade bane *User:Dark Seer Thoughts, anyone? --Remos talk 23:42, May 9, 2015 (UTC) I agree. The Administrator rank is not a ruler's privilege, but a responsibility. If somebody with Administrative rank can no longer fulfil their role of helping the community and managing the Wiki's affairs, continuing to hold the rank and its powers then becomes frivolous. — NecrusIV [[User_Talk:NecrusIV|(Talk)]] 01:01, May 10, 2015 (UTC) I agree for everyone except Blade bane and Dark Seer, their outstanding contribution to the wiki - up to and including creating the damn thing - should be recognised. --Lither My talk My wiki 01:03, May 10, 2015 (UTC) Yeah, we really should have got around do doing this sooner than this. KhalaelMy Talk 06:24, May 10, 2015 (UTC) I disagree with Lither. To create a Wikia site is basically as easy as to eat an ice-cream and those who are responsible of this site's current outlook and content are most likely me, Khal, Sol, and Necrus beyond any other. If Dark Seer's adminship is wanted to be kept solely because of history or "he deserves it" reasoning, I am willing to go for the Wikia staff about adopting this Wiki. This is not about any disrespect towards any of the admins of this site's early history, I just don't like the idea about someone who has contributed on this site 2-3 years ago has all the rights and privileges to this site... for no apparent reason at all. Not that I would've witnessed anything but basically trolling from you either, Lither, since I've joined this site. --Remos talk 08:09, May 10, 2015 (UTC) You're making the same mistake I did, mate. It'll be interesting to see how this ends. --Lither My talk My wiki 10:50, May 10, 2015 (UTC) I can't see any mistakes being made during the moment. Though I'd like to hear what our bureau has to say about the matter. --Remos talk 11:27, May 10, 2015 (UTC) If we could all see when each of our actions were a mistake, there'd be a lot less dead people. --fuck off 11:41, May 10, 2015 (UTC) I am a bit ambivalent about the subject. For one I do agree that people that don't contribute shouldn't necessarily have powers here. However the fact is that each of the Users did contribute considerably in the past, and while they aren't doing anything now there positions don't actually hurt anything. Plus you never know when one will spontaneously decide to pop in. Unlikely I know, but it sometimes happens with old Users. Also I should point out that Vegas is a Bureaucrat, and I can't do a thing about that. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 17:56, May 12, 2015 (UTC) That's a good point in both regards, Supah, if we didn't have the old admins we wouldn't have our most frequently used templates, like the property, contruction and tables. They have contributed a great deal to the wiki before and there is nothing that says they might not ever come back again. I for one remember having Run4 come back once after an extended period of absence to help the wiki for a time. --fuck off 00:57, May 13, 2015 (UTC) Frankly I don't care much one way or the other. As per usual if consensus is reached by the community regarding this matter I will consider myself beholden to it, but honestly this doesn't strike as an issue. Nothing is really broken here. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 01:39, May 13, 2015 (UTC) It is good to know that I can do or indeed not do anything at all and I'll never lose my admin rights on this site. --Remos talk 10:02, May 13, 2015 (UTC) Sarcasm does your side no favours. --fuck off 12:19, May 13, 2015 (UTC) Ugh, suppose I should say my piece. Personally, I'm in favour of demoting them. Administrators are here to do two things. One, aid users who require assistance, and two, keep this wiki running smoothly; whether that be stamping out stubs or NCF articles to banning the occasional vandal. It's our responsibility to the community here, and the main reason for why we were given our positions in the first place. I look to the old admins and while yes, their work in the past has without a doubt set the groundwork for how we run things today, they have ultimately done nothing of note for a number of years. It's a redundancy. I understand that they have their own lives to live and responsibilities outside of the wiki (don't we all) but if they can't find time in their schedules to stop by and help the current team of admins once in a while, then they shouldn't keep their positions. As a side note, I could contact Wikia Staff and have them remove Vegas' position of bureaucrat should we come to the decision that it would benefit the wiki to demote them. -- Love, Lendanto -(''Talk'' |My Sandbox) 17:48, May 13, 2015 (UTC) But as you kindly explained, it won't do me any harm either, Lither. --Remos talk 15:36, May 14, 2015 (UTC) This is cute and all, but we should really reach a resolution. — NecrusIV [[User_Talk:NecrusIV|(Talk)]] 02:53, May 15, 2015 (UTC) True enough. I say yes, for demotion. --Remos talk 07:45, May 15, 2015 (UTC) In that case, I vote no, they shouldn't not have no powers. --fuck off 08:29, May 15, 2015 (UTC) I abstain. I leave the decision up to this council. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 17:44, May 15, 2015 (UTC) I vote in favour of the demotions. KhalaelMy Talk 19:00, May 15, 2015 (UTC) As I understand, it seems to be 4 yes, 1 no, 1 abstain and one above this discussion? Plus of course the five who are in question here, and not likely to say yes or nay anyway. I would've hoped a bit better of you, Ork. --Remos talk 07:11, May 16, 2015 (UTC) Im in favour of demoting them, they serve no purpose any more of the wiki and their existence only weakens the regime we have worked so long to set up. Orkmarine 00:16, May 17, 2015 (UTC) Then it is 5 yes against 1 nay. I think this subject is pretty much concluded with that result. Supah, would you kindly demote administrators User:KuHB1aM, User:Run4urLife!, User:Blade bane and User:Dark Seer. Would you, Sol, contact Wikia about Vegas adict's bureau, and admin, position? --Remos talk 20:27, May 17, 2015 (UTC) Imposter's Promotion After discussing this in chat we have agreed to promote Imposter101 as a new administrator to help us with the Article Quality Control Policy. I'd just like to make this post as a sort of announcement and confirmation that all administrators are still happy with this decision. -- Love, Lendanto -(''Talk'' |My Sandbox) 22:06, June 5, 2015 (UTC) I'm happy with it. KhalaelMy Talk 22:08, June 5, 2015 (UTC) All cool with it. — NecrusIV [[User_Talk:NecrusIV|(Talk)]] 23:31, June 5, 2015 (UTC) I support this Orkmarine 01:51, June 6, 2015 (UTC) Why of course! I agree with this, as I said in our little chat before. --Remos talk 12:26, June 7, 2015 (UTC) Space Marine Chapter Numbers and Admin Permission With recent changes to the fluff regarded the number of Black Templars (whom are now apparently around one thousand men), I feel that the number that an admin can grant a user to raise their Space Marine Chapter should be capped at 1300. --Imposter101 (talk) 20:09, June 29, 2015 (UTC) I agree. Frankly I don't understand why our current maximum limit touches 2000. That's two whole Space Marine Chapters worth of Marines. Seems like an extreme number. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 20:12, June 29, 2015 (UTC) 2000 was only ever there as a provisional number back when the lore was less clarified and people could argue it on a technicality. In light of the recent concrete updates to the lore, it no longer has a place and 1000 marines are the declared limit as far as I am concerned. --'KhalaelMy Talk' 01:01, June 30, 2015 (UTC) Take the Ultramarines as an example of how this attitude of "higher quantity equals stronger and better chapter" is too reductionist. They're a stock-standard Codex Chapter, and all the post-HH accolades, wars against Ork WAAAGH!s, Renegade uprisings, Tau, and Necrons, and continued holding of Ultramar, have been done with 1000 marines. I doubt other chapters need higher numbers. — NecrusIV [[User_Talk:NecrusIV|(Talk)]] 03:03, June 30, 2015 (UTC) I agree, a chapter really has no need to go over 1000 marines and in the extreme cases in which it does, 1300 seems like a reasonable cap. Orkmarine 03:55, June 30, 2015 (UTC) I think that 1500 would be better, though I'm not against the 1300 either. I wouldn't want to see those chapters simply deleted that have been given permission to field 2500 (or more than 1300) just because of new rule change. Any idea of tagging them under OldWork? e: Or PreviousEdition?--Remos talk 07:58, June 30, 2015 (UTC) My suggestion to Supha in PM was to ether reevaluate former cases or contact the users, or make the change ourselves. Old Work seems like the best case otherwise. --Imposter101 (talk) 08:31, June 30, 2015 (UTC) I agree, the new limit for Space Marine Chapters should be 1300. In my eyes it's always beeen a tad absurd how some users try to argue that their Chapter should have up to 2000 Space Marines. It's just a way to make them feel like their Chapter is "super cool and special" because they have obscenely high numbers. Canon change or no, this should have been discussed by the wiki's current Administrative team, and I'm glad we're getting around to it. -- Solomus-BlackWing -(''Talk Page'') 16:23, June 30, 2015 (UTC) So, what is conclusion? We all agree with this (where does this canon-update happen, in some new codex?), so it passes with max 1300 marines. I suggest that chapters that have had approved +1300 marines before this are tagged (when found) with Template:Old (and not Template:OldWork) and a message to the author is sent. Yes? --Remos talk 10:58, July 1, 2015 (UTC) Seems fair. — NecrusIV [[User_Talk:NecrusIV|(Talk)]] 12:30, July 1, 2015 (UTC) It does. - Imposter101 (talk) 12:46, July 1, 2015 (UTC) Agreed. -- Solomus-BlackWing -(''Talk Page'') 14:58, July 1, 2015 (UTC) I'm also in agreement. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 15:08, July 1, 2015 (UTC) I'm in agreement, but I feel the limit should be a flat 1000. --'KhalaelMy Talk' 20:39, July 1, 2015 (UTC) Canon policy update - Space Marines allegiance and characters Like I brought up in my blog post. I'd like to bring this matter up in here, because I think that this particular part about "traitor loyalists" in our canon policy is somewhat poorly written and argued. I'd wish to remove following part of the policy: What do you think about it? I think this does not need further community consensus because it is about removing rules, not adding them. --Remos talk 09:36, September 20, 2015 (UTC) It should be rewritten. The traitor loyalist thing was a total pain to deal with. How about; "There will be no characters that were part of the Traitor Legions that remained Loyal to the Imperium and survived the Great Scouring. This includes Thunder Warriors. Only Fallen Angels are an exception to this rule." --Imposter101 (talk) 10:17, September 20, 2015 (UTC) But the Fallen are traitor loyalists (traitor members of the loyalist legions) and I am proposing to free traitor loyalists of other legions too. Loyalist traitors (Imperium-loyal members of the traitor legions) are and should be, in my oppinion at least, be banned. --Remos talk 14:17, September 20, 2015 (UTC) I'm uncertain to how canon friendly the concept is. I'm not saying it's impossible, so I can't disagree with that change. Misread your post, my mistake. --Imposter101 (talk) 16:19, September 20, 2015 (UTC) Forums update Another thing I'd like to bring up. Any of you don't happen to think that the "new" forum build, which is accessible through Wiki features, would be better than this old one? The new system is waaaaay more user friendly and requires a lot less maintaining (new threads are visible even without adding them through insideous source dabbling), and it would in most of the cases free the blogs from those wiki-wide question and leave blogs feature for blogging only. Which it is meant to. I also think that anyone familiar with actual forums, like me, would find the new forum system a lot more appealing and easy to get on with than this bastardised wiki-forum we have here now. Any thoughts? --Remos talk 09:41, September 20, 2015 (UTC) I'm in favour of implementing it. --'KhalaelMy Talk' 20:58, September 20, 2015 (UTC) I completely support this. — NecrusIV [[User_Talk:NecrusIV|(Talk)]] 23:55, September 20, 2015 (UTC) Aye I support this Orkmarine 01:56, September 21, 2015 (UTC) I am 100% certain that I will refrain from not supporting this endeavor. -- Love, Lendanto -(''Talk'' |My Sandbox) 02:14, September 21, 2015 (UTC) I don't see any issue with this. --Imposter101 (talk) 07:07, September 21, 2015 (UTC) I know the admins are all pretty much in unanimous agreement, but do you want to open this up to everyone else for discussion as well? --'KhalaelMy Talk' 11:18, September 21, 2015 (UTC) Yeah, can't hurt. It's not like their opinions don't matter. — NecrusIV [[User_Talk:NecrusIV|(Talk)]] 11:23, September 21, 2015 (UTC) So I changed the forum into new one, and.. it wasn't ok then, as it was disabled? --Remos talk 09:47, October 9, 2015 (UTC) I checked the records and it must have reverted by itself (probably a bug). Reactivated the new forums layout. Guess this board is a little redundant now. --'KhalaelMy Talk' 15:28, October 9, 2015 (UTC)